NationStates Jolt Archive

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20080312/ts_usnews/areiraqiinsurgentsemboldenedbyantiwarreporting)

Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq? The short answer, according to a pair of Harvard economists, is yes.

In a paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the authors are quick to point out numerous caveats to their findings, based on data from mid-2003 through late 2007.


Yet, their results show that insurgent groups are not devoid of reason and unresponsive to outside pressures and stimuli. "It shows that the various insurgent groups do respond to incentives and shows that a successful counter insurgency strategy should take that reality into account," says one of the paper's coauthors, Jonathan Monten, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.


The paper "Is There an 'Emboldenment' Effect in Iraq? Evidence From the Insurgency in Iraq" concludes the following:


--In the short term, there is a small but measurable cost to open public debate in the form of higher attacks against Iraqi and American targets.


--In periods immediately after a spike in "antiresolve" statements in the American media, the level of insurgent attacks increases between 7 and 10 percent.


--Insurgent organizations are strategic actors, meaning that whatever their motivations, religious or ideological, they will respond to incentives and disincentives.


But before partisans go wild on both sides of the aisle, here are just three of the important caveats to this study:


--The city of Baghdad, for a variety of reasons, was excluded from the report. The authors contend that looking at the outside provinces, where 65 percent of insurgent attacks take place, is a better way to understand the effect they have discovered. Other population centers like Mosul, Basra, Kirkuk, and Najaf were included in the study.


--The study does not take into account overall cost and benefit of public debate. Past research has shown that public debate has a positive effect on military strategy, for example, and, in the case of Iraq, might be a factor in forcing the Iraqi government to more quickly accept responsibility for internal security.


--It was not possible, from the data available, to determine whether insurgent groups increased the overall number of attacks against American and Iraqi targets in the wake of public dissent and debate or simply changed the timing of those attacks. This means that insurgents may not be increasing the number of attacks after all but simply changing the days on which they attack in response to media reports.


Maybe there is a chance that the Republicians were right?

Fuck, I’d take up arms and become an ‘insurgent’ just for someone using the word ‘emboldened’.

Fuck, I’d take up arms and become an ‘insurgent’ just for someone using the word ‘emboldened’.
Damn right.

"Do you feel emboldened?"
"Do you feel like getting smacked?"

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20080312/ts_usnews/areiraqiinsurgentsemboldenedbyantiwarreporting)



Maybe there is a chance that the Republicians were right?

So, let me get this straight:

You're claiming that reports about the TRUTH in Iraq, a war that had NO reason, will embolden the people that were NOT trying to harm you before the invasion TOOK PLACE? And that we should, thus, have the media use rose-tinted glasses and LIE to the public?

What in the Hades are you on?

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20080312/ts_usnews/areiraqiinsurgentsemboldenedbyantiwarreporting)



Maybe there is a chance that the Republicians were right?

:eek: AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! :eek:


EDIT: In hindsight that's not very funny...

hey why does it feel like breakfast?
I mean i feel really time-unfocusedy if you know what i mean. it's wierd, feels like i'm in two places.
sorry wasn't relevant.

http://smilies.vidahost.com/otn/realhappy/mhihi.gif You guys are all a bunch of silly sods, but I still love ya.

So, let me get this straight:

You're claiming that reports about the TRUTH in Iraq, a war that had NO reason, will embolden the people that were NOT trying to harm you before the invasion TOOK PLACE? And that we should, thus, have the media use rose-tinted glasses and LIE to the public?

No, I'm saying that there is a connection between America bashing and Insurgent attacks.

What in the Hades are you on?

*insert yo momma joke here*

Fuck, I’d take up arms and become an ‘insurgent’ just for someone using the word ‘emboldened’.

Damn right.

"Do you feel emboldened?"
"Do you feel like getting smacked?"
This was exactly what I was planning on saying.:eek:

No, I'm saying that there is a connection between America bashing and Insurgent attacks.

And on what do you base this alleged connection. Not the study cited in the OP, for it says no such thing.

And, as to what it does say, beware of the caveats.

This was exactly what I was planning on saying.:eek:
Well there we go. That's the younger elements of the UK for you :p

Oh, also, Sheffield Uni looked good when I went there for an open day just today (err technically now yesterday). Might well be able to have a Very Tiny NSG Meet-up :p

One of those caveats could be used by a smart commander to lure out insurgents.

No, I'm saying that there is a connection between America bashing and Insurgent attacks.

And what exactly do you call "America-bashing"? Pointing out that this war was a mistake? Pointing out that this war should not have been forced by, yes, the American government?

Maybe there is a chance that the Republicians were right?
!:eek: Not possible!

Coincidence.


And even if it does embolden the enemy, oh well. Im not going to stop voicing my opinion, which I am protected when I do under the US Constitution, for any reason.

Coincidence.


And even if it does embolden the enemy, oh well. Im not going to stop voicing my opinion, which I am protected when I do under the US Constitution, for any reason.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080312/capt.640c0bf2e4c74c418691b61d419bfc96.thailand_denmark_protest_bk101.jpg

This is what you're supporting.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080312/capt.640c0bf2e4c74c418691b61d419bfc96.thailand_denmark_protest_bk101.jpg

This is what you're supporting.

No.

***7th Flush!***

1.
This is what YOU are supporting when you support a continuation of the failed, misguided and evil war that caused it.
2.
This is what YOU are supporting when you support the notion of selling your constitutional rights dirt cheap due to fear.
3.
This is what YOU are supporting when you support acting unilaterally against the wishes of the world.
4.
This is what YOU are supporting when you support treating dissent as if it were a crime.
5.
This is what YOU are supporting when you support turning the US into a police state.
6.
This is what YOU are supporting when you support hatred for all Muslims because of the actions of few.
7.
This is what YOU are supporting when you use pictures for shock value to try and silence your opponent.

And the flush...

This is what YOU are supporting, Tyrandis, ALL YOU!

http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/ArticleImages/behead_those_who_insult_islam_web.jpg

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20080312/ts_usnews/areiraqiinsurgentsemboldenedbyantiwarreporting)



Maybe there is a chance that the Republicians were right?

I'm sure they are. However, the media should not misrepresent the war because of it. It is the military's duty, not the New York Times, to defeat the insurgents.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080312/capt.640c0bf2e4c74c418691b61d419bfc96.thailand_denmark_protest_bk101.jpg

This is what you're supporting.

No, Im supporting a free society where the open exchange of ideas is encouraged and where we dont go to war for stupid BS reasons and where the Government is not above question or the law.

The insinuation that because I question the government I am a terrorists is the same ass backwards logic the Bush administration has been using since it got its greedy little claws on power and hasnt stopped trumpeting since.


EDIT: Post one more of this pictures and Ill report you for trolling/picture spam. Youre not contributing to the thread when thats all you post.

Or, I could go and post WBC picket signs to prove a point about religious extremists...you know, being the same.

Embolden makes BritCat sad :(

I'm sure they are. However, the media should not misrepresent the war because of it. It is the military's duty, not the New York Times, to defeat the insurgents.

I agree. I will also add that I think the article is simply pointing out that there is a "cost" to us involved with our free speech to dissent. Did anyone really think there wasn't? Freedom isn't free, right?

Freedom isn't free, right?

Its a hefty fuckin fee.


....Buck o' Five...

Its a hefty fuckin fee.


....Buck o' Five...

And if we don't chip in

We'll never pay that bill...

And if we don't chip in

We'll never pay that bill...

Honostly, the songs of Team America can really be applied anywhere, Im especially fond of the Pearl Harbor song...


"I need to like Ben Affleck needs acting lessons..."

"I love you almost as much as Pearl Harbor sucked..."

Americans only get pissy about wars when they think they're losing them. They won't face the repercussions of their actions nor sacrifice anything to make the war run smoother.

Either support what your doing or be smart and be an Anti-Imperialist. I'm fed up with this flip-flopping, sunshine patriot shit that popped up during Vietnam. It's all great when we're winning, but as soon as it appears that we're "losing" then we pussy out and bitch about it.

Seriously, Tet wasn't a loss for us, it was a fucking catastrophe for the NVA, but all the hippies and other pussies bought into the news casts with a, "Oh no! Even though we lost roughly 6,000 allied soldiers while the NVA lost 85,000 thousand soldiers, we're going to lose this war!" Fucking pussies, Ho Chi Minh himself said something along the lines of, "We can win this war through the hearts and minds of the American college students."

The same thing is true right now. We've been in Iraq for almost 5 years, lost a mere 4,000 servicemen, killed that dictator horrible, horrible dictator that was our fucking ally until the first Gulf War, but bitch about it... Why? It's not like the insurgency can actually defeat us, we're only "losing" because we're telling ourselves so, because we only have 150,000 soldiers doing police work in a country that can't get it's shit together and unify against the insurgency.

Americans can't seem to formulate their own opinions. I can assure you that if the media stopped airing the bad news and only the good news, we would see this as yet another stunning American victory.

US Imperialism's bad, ok? And being a half-assed sunshine patriot doesn't help the matter once you get in a sticky situation.

So, let me get this straight:
You're claiming that reports about the TRUTH in Iraq, a war that had NO reason, will embolden the people that were NOT trying to harm you before the invasion TOOK PLACE? And that we should, thus, have the media use rose-tinted glasses and LIE to the public?


I would guess he is.

Anyway:
if the insurgents (the insurgents, aka freedom fighters! this doesn't mean "terrorists") who are fighting back against a brutal and totally illegal invasion of their country feel 'emboldened' because they get reports about the truth emerging even in the countries who supported that war, well, I'm just happy about that.

It's a good thing the study is rather inconclusive. Imagine someone using it to make a point.

This is what you're supporting.

Rather that than a million dead.

I would suspect that having a moron for US President, waterboarding, and US military incompetence also 'enbiggen' the insurgents spirit.

And on what do you base this alleged connection. Not the study cited in the OP, for it says no such thing.

And, as to what it does say, beware of the caveats.

This is exactly what I was thinking. This study really is just vanilla. The caveats, and the fact that Baghdad was not included, make this a pretty weak argument. The only people who will jump on this are the people who want to make this appear as if it's a major correlation. Also, anti-war =/= America bashing.

The anti-war movement in America, as in the really anti-war movement, is very small indeed. The fact is, Americans are apathetic and indifferent in the extreme to everything. People are scared of direct action.

I would suspect that having a moron for US President, waterboarding, and US military incompetence also 'enbiggen' the insurgents spirit.



^Cromulant post.

The anti-war movement in America, as in the really anti-war movement, is very small indeed. The fact is, Americans are apathetic and indifferent in the extreme to everything. People are scared of direct action.You live in Australia, don't you? Not to be punching massive holes into your argument, but how do you know what goes on in the US?

Rambhutan
I would suspect that having a moron for US President, waterboarding, and US military incompetence also 'enbiggen' the insurgents spirit.

I doubt that waterborading is a huge deal to guys who regluarly behead civilians.... And the U.S military could easily win the war if it had the backing of it country behind it. If the American people could muster up the courage to actually fight the war. The biggest threat to victory in Iraq,is the American people.

Laerod,just to take a wild guess here. But seeing that were talking about Iraq(which I guessing,none of us live in.) I have to say the WWW or the media...

Every insurgent attack is preceded by rain in Prague... Maybe I'll publish a study about that...
Or maybe it's Pirates... Yes, the EVIL MUSLIMS must be connected to the cult of the Flying Spagetti Monster...

Come on, seriously, with caveats like those they could have shown anything.
Expecially the fact that, for some reason, Baghdad is excluded from the study makes it look like they were fitting the data to the theory.
It's like making a study that says that in the death valley it rains for the greatest part of the year with the caveat that you dismissed from the study the sunny days.

.... And the U.S military could easily win the war if it had the backing of it country behind it....

People said that about the Vietnam war, and it wasn't true then either.

I doubt that waterborading is a huge deal to guys who regluarly behead civilians.... And the U.S military could easily win the war if it had the backing of it country behind it. If the American people could muster up the courage to actually fight the war. The biggest threat to victory in Iraq,is the American people.
Yes, but it doesn't have the backing of any country at all at the moment. The UK government vaguely supports them, Australia is moving away and Israel is the US' bum chum, so it's hardly surprising that they're for the US in Iraq.

Things are kinda bad in Iraq, if improving, and people don't really want billions of dollars a year being pissed away for what is basically no reason at all. Saddam was taken out supposedly because of his cruelty and use of repression against Iraqi civilians. The only way that the US has begun to succeed in Iraq is to deploy troops all over the place and institute martial law. Explain to me how this is any different, please.

<snip>
EDIT: Post one more of this pictures and Ill report you for trolling/picture spam. Youre not contributing to the thread when thats all you post.


Don't bother, it's been seen. Tyrandis, once is fair comment, twice is pushing your luck, three times would definitely be pic-spam. Don't do it. KoL, next time, just report it, please.

The anti-war movement in America, as in the really anti-war movement, is very small indeed. The fact is, Americans are apathetic and indifferent in the extreme to everything. People are scared of direct action.

Andaras, this form of argument leads to "Marxists are (insult)" -- or even, dear me, "Australians are (insult)". You can do better than that.

^Cromulant post.

Vaklavia, don't just opinionate, debate.

People said that about the Vietnam war, and it wasn't true then either.

First of all,does anybody notices how it always come back to Vietnam? We didn't win Vietnam,so we can't win Iraq...BS!!

Second of all,becuase of the massive anti-war movement in the U.S. Military commanders have two main concerns when they sent their troops out in the battlegrounds of Iraq and Afghanstian,first of all, how can we gain the support of the local people and how can we reduce the amount of losses I suffer?

The problem with this is you can't have both. You can gain the support and trust of the Iraqis or Afghanstians people by getting out their,protecting them from terriosts,stopping attacks you KNOW when and where their gonig to happen and in the end. Lose troops, and such risk the fact that congress or whoever will end the mission because your "losing" too many soldiers. And such the sacfirce will be in vain.

Now to make sure you don't lose soldiers, you can call in airstrikes and use groups like Blackwater that have no regard for the civilian people and even when you kill the bad guys.The common guy on the street dieds too. And why should they risk their lifes and familys helping a forgien army that clearly doesn't give a dam about it? Why should they inform on terriosts or help the Americans,when their not going to do anything?

This is a war for the support of the civilian popualtions of American and Iraq and other invole countrys(Afghanstian). Whoever wins the support of the common Iraq man,wins the war no matter how long the U.S military fights. And if the terriosts can get the American to lose faith in their war. They can use the American people to cripple the actions of the American commanders in Iraq.

The excat same thing happens in Afghanstian. You can't be having a debate about o,should we go or stay? Because if you end up leaving anyway. Why put the time and effort,into winning?

Vaklavia, don't just opinionate, debate.

My bad rather than Vaklavia's - they got my Simpsons reference and were responding in kind.

First of all,does anybody notices how it always come back to Vietnam? We didn't win Vietnam,so we can't win Iraq...BS!!

Second of all,becuase of the massive anti-war movement in the U.S. Military commanders have two main concerns when they sent their troops out in the battlegrounds of Iraq and Afghanstian,first of all, how can we gain the support of the local people and how can we reduce the amount of losses I suffer?

The problem with this is you can't have both. You can gain the support and trust of the Iraqis or Afghanstians people by getting out their,protecting them from terriosts,stopping attacks you KNOW when and where their gonig to happen and in the end. Lose troops, and such risk the fact that congress or whoever will end the mission because your "losing" too many soldiers. And such the sacfirce will be in vain.

Now to make sure you don't lose soldiers, you can call in airstrikes and use groups like Blackwater that have no regard for the civilian people and even when you kill the bad guys.The common guy on the street dieds too. And why should they risk their lifes and familys helping a forgien army that clearly doesn't give a dam about it? Why should they inform on terriosts or help the Americans,when their not going to do anything?

This is a war for the support of the civilian popualtions of American and Iraq and other invole countrys(Afghanstian). Whoever wins the support of the common Iraq man,wins the war no matter how long the U.S military fights. And if the terriosts can get the American to lose faith in their war. They can use the American people to cripple the actions of the American commanders in Iraq.

The excat same thing happens in Afghanstian. You can't be having a debate about o,should we go or stay? Because if you end up leaving anyway. Why put the time and effort,into winning?

The reason it tends to come back to Vietnam is because the lessons of history appear to have been lost. Iraq is an unwinnable war - it will not end well whatever the US does, and certainly not easily with or without the support of all Americans. The basic rule is that people always resent having foreign troops in their country even if they originally wanted their help (which was not on the US agenda when it came to invading anyway). The only solution would have been a quick in and out - get rid of Saddam and then leave. Unfortunately the US insisited on playing real politic games resulting in the current mess.

My bad rather than Vaklavia's - they got my Simpsons reference and were responding in kind.


Oh, okay. My apologies, Vaklavia. Serves me right for skimming.

(Nitpickery -- "embiggen" = Simpsons, but I thought "cromulent" was a Friends meme? No, don't tell me, it's off-topic, I'll go Wiki it. I'm just procrastinating because I've got a deadline to write to.

EDIT: You win. Totally Simpsons.)

Yes, but it doesn't have the backing of any country at all at the moment. The UK government vaguely supports them, Australia is moving away and Israel is the US' bum chum, so it's hardly surprising that they're for the US in Iraq.

Things are kinda bad in Iraq, if improving, and people don't really want billions of dollars a year being pissed away for what is basically no reason at all. Saddam was taken out supposedly because of his cruelty and use of repression against Iraqi civilians. The only way that the US has begun to succeed in Iraq is to deploy troops all over the place and institute martial law. Explain to me how this is any different, please.

Yeah,most western governments don't support the war because their people(the ones who elect them remember?) don't support the war. And these people get their information about the war from the media(this shining beacon of truth and freedom). Who aren't getting pay for telling the truth. Their getting payed for how many newpapers they sell and how many people watch their new show. And whats sells? Bad news. Sure the media isn't actually lieing per so. It just that their only telling one side of the story. The side that SELLS!!

Kinda bad in Iraq? You mean one of the various countrys where conflicting ethic groups were force to live together by the withdrawning British goverment at the end of WW2? The SAME people who were brutally control by a dictor for 20 years9??)and now were invaded by a forgein government and have terriosts groups fighting the government for their own ends. Geeze,no wonder they don't have milkmen delveing their morning bottle of milk!

And billions of dollars being pissed away? Who cares. The American greenback is good as gold. In trillions of dollars of debt? No problem! We just borrow another 100 billion from China.

And as to why Saddam was taken out. Is anybody best guess. Whats matters now. Is you ARE in Iraq. Your repuation as a military power is at sake. Who the hell going to take seriouse a country that can't beat a rag-tag groups of soldiers? I mena you wonder why Iran doesn't listen to you guys. They know you can touch them. Even if you weren't in Iraq. You wouldn't dare invade another country, and even if you did. What too fear? Their lot more at sake then you think. Their has been many issues throughout the world that has only been solve not because of peacekeepers or the U.N. But because of the threat that the conflicting countrys may end up with maries on their beaches. It call gunboating dilpomancy,my friend.

And ya. The more U.S troops in Iraq. Means the more soldiers to protect Iraq civilians,more soldiers to hold taken citys. And a greater sense of protection for the common Iraq person. I find it laughable that you have 150,000 troops in Iraq and you think it alot. You should have twice the number if you want to actually win. 4000 deaths is the price of war. That the price of being a soldier. They know the risks. It not like their being forced to serve.

And different? It different because the Iraq people have rights now,they have a chance, a chance for peace and a real life for their familys. Now if you really want to win this war. You get rid of the copurt goverment in Iraq and Afghanstian. As their part of the problem. The Pasktian goverment are the ones who got the violence going in Afghanstian and the local goverments are worst then the terriost themself,in many cases.

Yeah,most western governments don't support the war because their people(the ones who elect them remember?) don't support the war. And these people get their information about the war from the media(this shining beacon of truth and freedom). Who aren't getting pay for telling the truth.

So are you saying there really were WMD and Al Qaeda in Iraq?

The reason it tends to come back to Vietnam is because the lessons of history appear to have been lost. Iraq is an unwinnable war - it will not end well whatever the US does, and certainly not easily with or without the support of all Americans. The basic rule is that people always resent having foreign troops in their country even if they originally wanted their help (which was not on the US agenda when it came to invading anyway). The only solution would have been a quick in and out - get rid of Saddam and then leave. Unfortunately the US insisited on playing real politic games resulting in the current mess.

At first,yes people won't like the foreign troops. But I think the Iraq people are smart enough to know that the U.S is a better chocie then being ruled under a terriost group.

And Vietnam is a textbook example of what happens when a country does not have it people support.

The American stragery in Vietnam was to use airstrikes to hit the enemy. Airstrikes that killed the local people. Such even those no Americans deid in the attack. Local people who might have supported the US troops being in their country,who might have given them intel and warn them about enemy attacks. Had no reason too. Instead they hide the enemys and helped them instead. Which in the long run was why the war was losted.

Not to forget that in another effort to reduce cataulies, American troops would stay in their bases and only go outside to fight the waiting NVA army,kill a bunch of them and then go back to their base. And repeat the same losing effort.

A real way to win a gurllia war is a hearts and mind camagin. Which if you read up on the British SAS forces and their missions, is something that ALWAYS works. In the same time as the Vietnam war. The British has another secret "Vietnam" on the go. But instead of assuming that the commom man would support them without having the British prove themself. The British fought,were scare to deid,didn't have the media to worry about as the war was secret, and they won over local Indian tribes with their hearts and mind camagin. Which resulted in a British victory.

http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/ArticleImages/behead_those_who_insult_islam_web.jpg

I didn't know you were in favor of beheading those who insult Islam.

Or are you trying to shut up your opponents through a despicable, and poor, attempt at using fear?

Either way, I argue much better than you do. Keep going with this and I will enjoy my easy victory against your poor, shoddy tactics.

A real way to win a gurllia war is a hearts and mind camagin. Which if you read up on the British SAS forces and their missions, is something that ALWAYS works. In the same time as the Vietnam war. The British has another secret "Vietnam" on the go. But instead of assuming that the commom man would support them without having the British prove themself. The British fought,were scare to deid,didn't have the media to worry about as the war was secret, and they won over local Indian tribes with their hearts and mind camagin. Which resulted in a British victory.

If you mean the British in Malaya, I am not sure it was all hearts and minds - what ultimately resolved the situation was the British leaving and Malaysia gaining independence.

Yeah,most western governments don't support the war because their people(the ones who elect them remember?) don't support the war. And these people get their information about the war from the media(this shining beacon of truth and freedom). Who aren't getting pay for telling the truth. Their getting payed for how many newpapers they sell and how many people watch their new show. And whats sells? Bad news. Sure the media isn't actually lieing per so. It just that their only telling one side of the story. The side that SELLS!!
No, more because they didn't have anything to gain from this war, to be honest. Nor did the US, let's be honest.
Kinda bad in Iraq? You mean one of the various countrys where conflicting ethic groups were force to live together by the withdrawning British goverment at the end of WW2? The SAME people who were brutally control by a dictor for 20 years9??)and now were invaded by a forgein government and have terriosts groups fighting the government for their own ends. Geeze,no wonder they don't have milkmen delveing their morning bottle of milk!
...

Damn right. I don't see why there was an invasion in the first place, and that there are terrorists being funded by everyone and anyone doing their thing is entirely unsurprising.
And billions of dollars being pissed away? Who cares. The American greenback is good as gold. In trillions of dollars of debt? No problem! We just borrow another 100 billion from China.
When noted economist Sway DaFaso pointed out that the pound is stronger than the dollar, he was right. It's not twice as strong. Even the Loon is stronger. The Swiss Franc is making ground.

The US dollar is crap at the moment.
And as to why Saddam was taken out. Is anybody best guess. Whats matters now. Is you ARE in Iraq. Your repuation as a military power is at sake. Who the hell going to take seriouse a country that can't beat a rag-tag groups of soldiers? I mena you wonder why Iran doesn't listen to you guys. They know you can touch them. Even if you weren't in Iraq. You wouldn't dare invade another country, and even if you did. What too fear? Their lot more at sake then you think.
Yeah, luckily we have Trident as a general "invade us or attack us in any great numbers and anything you loved or cared about will be destroyed completely within about half an hour" type affair, which is great.
Their has been many issues throughout the world that has only been solve not because of peacekeepers or the U.N. But because of the threat that the conflicting countrys may end up with maries on their beaches. It call gunboating dilpomancy,my friend.
No, it isn't. It's called gunboat diplomacy.
And ya. The more U.S troops in Iraq. Means the more soldiers to protect Iraq civilians,more soldiers to hold taken citys. And a greater sense of protection for the common Iraq person. I find it laughable that you have 150,000 troops in Iraq and you think it alot. You should have twice the number if you want to actually win.
Right, right. But on the other hand, how is this any different to the set-up Saddam had?

Soldiers all over the place to keep people subdued, and martial law is exactly what he did. Yeah, fine, we've yet to gas the Kurds, but we're leaving that to Turkey at the moment.

There was no reason to go in at all.
4000 deaths is the price of war. That the price of being a soldier. They know the risks. It not like their being forced to serve.
Yeah, I'm quite aware of that.
And different? It different because the Iraq people have rights now
No more real rights than they used to have. Oh, you can say the government is crap. Who cares?
they have a chance, a chance for peace and a real life for their familys.
Aye, they did before, and they didn't run the risk of getting blown up by some twat with a carbomb at the market.
Now if you really want to win this war. You get rid of the copurt goverment in Iraq and Afghanstian. As their part of the problem.
Damn right. A UK-led proper dictatorship would be the best form of government there, but that kind of thing isn't on the cards with the world how it is now. Bugger democracy and freedom and all that pish until Iraq can actually be controlled by the government.
The Pasktian goverment are the ones who got the violence going in Afghanstian and the local goverments are worst then the terriost themself,in many cases.
Quite.

So are you saying there really were WMD and Al Qaeda in Iraq?

Nope,that twisting my words around. The media does tell the truth, but they only tell the truth that best fits their veiw of it. A veiw that the war is losted,their no hope and Americans are dieding for a losted cause. Why do they support this veiw? Becuase it sells newpapers. It telling the good side of the war,sold more papers. The common American would wonder why their wasting so much money on bullets and armor,for their troops when their no fighting in Iraq.

So do you get that? The American media is BAIS and are only telling one side of the situation. Sure the U.S government is just as in the wrong. But we all know the government is lieing. What sickens me is this veiw people have is that the media never lies and extist only to tell the truth and up hold the working man rights. Don't be so naviee. Nobody tells the whole truth. Everybody has a agenda. Don't believe everything you hear. It a common fact people usually only question harshly things that go agisnt their view. But if their a agurment that supports their veiw. Their less likely to question it.

*blah blah blah Hearts and Minds*
Yep.
Which if you read up on the British SAS forces and their missions, is something that ALWAYS works.
The SAS don't really do hearts and minds work. That's for the Engineers to do. The SAS are about direct action strikes on enemy leaders, or locations of importance, as well as general intelligence-gathering work.

Traditionally, people in insurgent movements, guerilla movements, and those merely engaged in international terrorism look to the media and public attention as their primary goal.

Thus, it is not surprising that if there is more coverage of terrorist/insurgent events, that they are emboldened by the coverage, and commit more acts.

It's not the initial reason that insurgents and terrorists act, though.

It's easy to say that if we hadn't invaded Iraq, there wouldn't be insurgents there now - hard to say because the past is behind us, and we have to deal with the present and future. Hard to say also, because although there's no connection between Saddam and al-Q, Mr. Zarqawi came to Iraq three months before the US invasion in order to start a rebellion - whether against Saddam or against the invading US - in the name of al-Q. I'm not sure if Saddam would have fared any better against al-Q than the Americans, and I'm not sure if we would have liked Saddam's methods of dealing with al-Q (slaughter, genocide, rape, pillage, torture) than we liked the naked homoerotic pyramid of Abu Gharaib.

In the 1970s, news organizations were much more aware that terrorist organizations were using them. Now, news organizations like the fact that they're being used, primarily because the stories are sensational and sell copy.

In the 1970s, news organizations were much more aware that terrorist organizations were using them. Now, news organizations like the fact that they're being used, primarily because the stories are sensational and sell copy.
Quite. See the RAF in Germany being called the Baader-Meinhof Gang until about the mid 1980s to detract credibility from the movement.

If you mean the British in Malaya, I am not sure it was all hearts and minds - what ultimately resolved the situation was the British leaving and Malaysia gaining independence.

Yes, but I mean the military defeat of the gurllia group that was waging a war for the Malaysia independence. Becuase yes,their other things that need to be done,beside shooting everybody. But hearts and minds,do go a long way.

Yootopia

The SAS don't really do hearts and minds work. That's for the Engineers to
do. The SAS are about direct action strikes on enemy leaders, or locations of importance, as well as general intelligence-gathering work.

Yeah.Point is,a part of the SAS did. Ok? Lets not be picky! :P

Yootopia
Right, right. But on the other hand, how is this any different to the set-up Saddam had?

Soldiers all over the place to keep people subdued, and martial law is exactly what he did. Yeah, fine, we've yet to gas the Kurds, but we're leaving that to Turkey at the moment.

There was no reason to go in at all.


I think the only differents really, is the fact the common people don't hate us compelety YET. That their a CHANCE for something better if the terriotsts are defeated. Besides that. The only reason for this war in the first place is probably for the rich back in the U.S who make money selling bullets,planes,armored cars and the likes. After all. Somebody get payed to replace the blown up ACs you see on the news. I never said this war is a good thing. No wars are. But it a war that their shouldn't be any running from. Remember the embassy bombings? The U.S ran away and what happen excatly?

As for the Kurds. We can blame the British for that too.

And dam right to the rest of your replys and to Sanmartin too!

If your own media is encouraging your enemy, it is going to have a positive affect on your enemy.

I love John Madden newsbits-they tell you nothing.

Repost:

Americans only get pissy about wars when they think they're losing them. They won't face the repercussions of their actions nor sacrifice anything to make the war run smoother.

Either support what your doing or be smart and be an Anti-Imperialist. I'm fed up with this flip-flopping, sunshine patriot shit that popped up during Vietnam. It's all great when we're winning, but as soon as it appears that we're "losing" then we pussy out and bitch about it.

Seriously, Tet wasn't a loss for us, it was a fucking catastrophe for the NVA, but all the hippies and other pussies bought into the news casts with a, "Oh no! Even though we lost roughly 6,000 allied soldiers while the NVA lost 85,000 thousand soldiers, we're going to lose this war!" Fucking pussies, Ho Chi Minh himself said something along the lines of, "We can win this war through the hearts and minds of the American college students."

The same thing is true right now. We've been in Iraq for almost 5 years, lost a mere 4,000 servicemen, killed that dictator horrible, horrible dictator that was our fucking ally until the first Gulf War, but bitch about it... Why? It's not like the insurgency can actually defeat us, we're only "losing" because we're telling ourselves so, because we only have 150,000 soldiers doing police work in a country that can't get it's shit together and unify against the insurgency.

Americans can't seem to formulate their own opinions. I can assure you that if the media stopped airing the bad news and only the good news, we would see this as yet another stunning American victory.

US Imperialism's bad, ok? And being a half-assed sunshine patriot doesn't help the matter once you get in a sticky situation.

Repost:

Americans only get pissy about wars when they think they're losing them. They won't face the repercussions of their actions nor sacrifice anything to make the war run smoother.

Either support what your doing or be smart and be an Anti-Imperialist. I'm fed up with this flip-flopping, sunshine patriot shit that popped up during Vietnam. It's all great when we're winning, but as soon as it appears that we're "losing" then we pussy out and bitch about it.

Seriously, Tet wasn't a loss for us, it was a fucking catastrophe for the NVA, but all the hippies and other pussies bought into the news casts with a, "Oh no! Even though we lost roughly 6,000 allied soldiers while the NVA lost 85,000 thousand soldiers, we're going to lose this war!" Fucking pussies, Ho Chi Minh himself said something along the lines of, "We can win this war through the hearts and minds of the American college students."

The same thing is true right now. We've been in Iraq for almost 5 years, lost a mere 4,000 servicemen, killed that dictator horrible, horrible dictator that was our fucking ally until the first Gulf War, but bitch about it... Why? It's not like the insurgency can actually defeat us, we're only "losing" because we're telling ourselves so, because we only have 150,000 soldiers doing police work in a country that can't get it's shit together and unify against the insurgency.Now who's fault is that?

Americans can't seem to formulate their own opinions. I can assure you that if the media stopped airing the bad news and only the good news, we would see this as yet another stunning American victory.Are you suggesting another Grenada?